John Pucher and Ralph Buehler have put out a rare paper – i.e. one not about cycling – on “Making public transport financially sustainable.”
They looked at Germany, and found it had improved quality and productivity of public transit service while reducing costs and cutting subsidies. And did it in ways that should confound practically everyone.
How? Through restructuring and outsourcing. Reducing benefits and freezing salaries. Cutting routes. Raising fares. Increasing costs and restrictions on car use. And more.
Read about it here.
UPDATE: John Pucher received this comment from a reader:
I see lots of material about the poor financial performance of public transport, loss of productivity, value for money, etc. but very rarely see similar material about road transport for cars and lorries.
Mobility is expensive and there are lots of advantages to the public purse in lower mobility with higher accessibility. But we live in two parallel universes where highway expenditure is seen as really good news, widens opportunities, creates jobs, reduces congestion, etc. and is an investment in valuable infrastructure. Public transport expenditure, on the other hand, is wasteful, poor value for money and is a subsidy.
My home city of Lancaster (UK) provides an excellent example of this perversity. We are constantly told that the private sector must pay for new buses, rail investment (rolling stock, more frequent services and stations) … and a tram system is ridiculously expensive and out of the question. We are also told that a four-mile new road costing £137 million (216 million USD) has a really good benefit-cost ratio, will create jobs and will reduce congestion.
The road has won! It now has planning permission and is supported by all political parties except the Greens, and all our planners and transport professionals support it
No matter how bad public transport’s financial sustainability might be, the financial non-sustainability of cars and lorries is far worse and an insult to the intelligence of our species.
John Pucher responded:
I couldn’t agree more, but as you could see, we went overlength just dealing with PT. So many other articles and books have dealt with the huge social and environmental costs, and financial burdens, of automobility that we really did not have the space to deal with it here.
BUT I do WISH we had added at least one paragraph in the conclusions raising the issue of RELATIVE financial sustainability compared to cars and roads. We did not deliberately leave it out, we just felt overwhelmed with what we already had and were relieved to finally get the paper finished.
financial sustainability of transit is very important, since you don’t want be in the improbable situation where the more the public transit is patronized, the more it cost to tax payer.
So I am happy the topic make its way here, and this time of financial restraint for Translink should be an opportunity to explore way to achieve greater financial sustainability
(I have myself expressed some idea toward it: http://voony.wordpress.com/2010/05/13/translink-2009-annual-report-reviewed/ ).
But what also underline the German report is the role of “senior” Government policy working altogether to make the public transit alternative more attractive.
gas tax increase has been made revenue neutral by lowering payroll tax (and not cherry picking a “winner” ala Gordon):
Not only that make public transit more attractive but make the German economy one of the world most competitive economy (and at selling Benz and BMW at that !)
In the meantime, in BC gasoline is HST exempt…
Obviously I haven’t had time to read all 40 pages. But from the abstract a couple of sentences stood out for me:
“Although the financial performance of German public transport had greatly improved, there are concerns of the inequitable burdens on labor, since many of the cost reduction measures involved reducing wages or benefits of workers.”
“Public transport in Germany captures five times as high a market share as in the USA (8.0 vs. 1.6% of all trips).”
“Thanks to their affluence, both countries have high rates of car ownership: 560 cares per 1,000 population in Germany versus 780 cars per 1,000 inhabitants in the USA (BMVBS, 1991-2010, USDOT 1990-2008). Both countries have extensive roadway systems with limited accesss highway networks (IRF, 2007, OICD, 2008). Car manufactuing and related sectors are important to both national economies–but twice as important in Germany as in the USA (20% vs. 10% of GDP) (USDOT, 1990-2008, VDA, 2007). In both countries the automobile is an important symbol of freedom and mobility (Schmucki, 2001, Wachs et al., 1992, Wolf, 1986).”
=========================
Taken together I wonder if these observations could be said to imply that Germany is just as much involved in “Motordom” as the USA?
The concern about labour incomes for transit workers would in no way be shared by most transit “planners” and “advocates” in Vancouver, who are mostly a professional or at least white collar crowd who favour driverless systems on grounds first articulated by Point Grey MLA Pat McGeer–it limits the ability of labour disputes to halt the system.
I recall being told by a City of Vancouver engineering department official many years ago that there was a need to bring in smaller buses to provide an apparent justification for reducing driver’s wages, especially on the suburban routes.
I am unable to download the file – anyone else having problems?
Never mind, got it. For some reason my Mac wasn’t cooperating…
I’m going to have to take a look further into this, but I have to agree with the concerns brought forward about cost reductions made on the backs of workers. If we have wage deflation then even with fares staying steady the mobility decreases. That of course speaks to a larger macro economic issue that I’m sure upper class managers of transit systems would love to absolve themselves over any responsibility for, but it’s real, and it’s effectively labour exploitation for the purposes of saving a few bucks. It’s not a solution, it’s a step backwards.
Public transit is financially sustainable if governments simply fund it the way they already subsidize our car culture. This is just an excuse to make workers suffer, which in itself will degrade service, though likely in ways that the owners won’t understand.
I will read more though.
In all fairness…do read the full report. And in all fairness to TransLink, they are trying to adopt several of the concepts outlined in this report. Some things are just not politically possible at the moment.
In Germany, the Federal and State governments seem to be aware of the need to work together to make transit more attractive and realize that part of that equation is actively discouraging car use. Its a big part of the equation that is completely missing from the Federal and Provincial dialog in this country.
We also have varying standards and concepts on what it means to build transit oriented communities that are also pedestrian and bike friendly. I suspect German buses don’t have bike racks….because it is not feasible to offer a bike rack for only 2-3 passengers on board when many many more take the bike to the bus stop. Pedestrian and bicycle access is considered for each bus stop in Germany…Metro Vancouver municipalities really aren’t that evolved yet in brining pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure to that level in more than a handful of locations.
What does TransLink need to grasp from this report? A review on the corporate structure delivering transit services should be initiated. Would there be more benefit from more private provision of transit services? Can publicly funded provision be delivered in a more efficient fashion? In reality, fear of the transit unions prevents a serious debate on this issue. Some progress has been made, but it is very small in the big scheme of things. There is likely room for improvement but its a question of what sort of chaos are we willing to put up with to put the unions on their place. This doesn’t mean paying bus drivers minimum wage, but some implementing some part time staff and removal of Sunday premiums could likely yield considerable savings.
Finally, TransLink needs to start giving serious consideration to solutions such as surface light rail and rapid bus for more transit expansion. Metro (or light metro) has its application where there is ridership to justify (like Broadway from Comm’l to Granville). Many other extensions (Surrey especially) can best be done for far less with light rail or rapid bus. If the Province however continues to mico-manage every rapid transit expansion to their own end…then TransLink can’t be expected to do much better than they are now on this front until they have the power to chart their own course.
I would like to think that we can consider bringing in more flexibility with bus service with things like allowing more flexibility of scheduling, part-time shifts, and to see if contracting out some services would give us good service, while still providing good wages for bus drivers.
For instance, this is an article about the conclusion of the last strike in ~ 2001. I am unsure if issues like part-time shifts and spare-board has been changed since.
——
“Those key issues remain Coast Mountain’s proposals to use part-time drivers for some bus routes, such as rush-hour service, and to contract out some little-used suburban service to the private sector. The company argues the changes are essential to improving the system’s efficiency and getting more out of taxpayers’ dollars.
The union remains adamantly opposed to both ideas, arguing they would mean the erosion of fair-paying, full-time jobs for its members. The union also contends there’s no evidence using part-timers would save the system any money.
One less-publicized bargaining issue related to the efficiency question is the system’s use of a “spare board,” whereby idle bus drivers are paid to wait on-call to cover shifts, such as when a scheduled driver calls in sick.
About 300 drivers — 12 per cent of the total staff — do spare board duty at a given time, and Coast Mountain is also seeking changes to that and other shift-scheduling provisions it believes are unnecessarily complex and wasteful.
“There’s no other work force I can think of where 12 per cent of the staff are waiting for something to happen,” Coast Mountain spokesman Norman Stowe said. “The rules are so complicated that millions of dollars are being paid out just because of the scheduling rules.”
“It’s antiquated and inefficient.” ”
http://www.yourlibrary.ca/community/richmondreview/archive/RR20010524/morenews.html
The concerns about reducing transit costs by cutting wages and other labour benefits need more context. German transit wage changes are shown as percentages, but with no information of what the starting points are, and how transit wages compare to similar jobs. I’ve seen other data that German union jobs are much higher paying than the European norm, with perks far beyond the rest of the EU or North America.
For example, a 50% cut in German transit worker salaries might seem drastic. But if they were previously making 100% more than comparable jobs in other sectors, they’re still significantly ahead. When I see percentages, I always ask, what is the base?
Reductions, or no increases, aren’t necessarily inequitable.
===>>> John
“In Germany, the Federal and State governments seem to be aware of the need to work together to make transit more attractive and realize that part of that equation is actively discouraging car use.”
===========================
I didn’t have time to read all forty pages, can you point to the section where this is discussed? Thanks.